What do you all think of Lopakhin? I have mixed feelings about him. In Act I, Mme Ranevsky has barely had time to settle in to her home after being abroad for 5 years, and Lopakhin decides to just jump right in and tell her that she's got to cut down her cherry orchard and rent out her property or it will be auctioned off and she will be homeless. What a nice, warm welcome home. He certainly has never heard the term "beat around the bush."
Later on page 20, he says: "Excuse me, but in all my life I never met anybody so frivolous as you two [Gayef and Mme Ranevsky], so crazy and unbusinesslike! I tell you in plain Russian your property is going to be sold, and you don't seem to understand what I say." Okay, that was a bit harsh and upfront, but then again, he kind of needs to be harsh here because Gayef and Mme Ranevsky do need some sense knocked into them. I also see this as an instance where Lopakhin is just trying to look out for his friends/neighbors; he is actually being nice here because he doesn't want to see the Ranevskys lose all of their property. So my conclusion is that Lopakhin can rub people the wrong way, but deep down, he still is a caring guy. - lma-c Mar 3, 2008
I definitely think that Lopakhin is a little too pushy and money-centric to come off as a good neighbor. While he really has nothing to gain from the sale of the cherry orchard (as far as I can tell), I'm not quite ready to conclude that his motives are good... he's just being so ingorant of Ranevsky and Gayef's feelings and emotional ties that I still don't like him. While I can see that Mme Ranevsky really isn't very good at looking out for her finances, Gayef seems to be motivated enough to take action, as does Barabara if it were to fall to her. All in all, I'm still uneasy about Lopakhin. - lsi-c Mar 3, 2008
In all honesty, I found Lopakhin to be the voice of reason. He kept on telling the Ranevskys "by the way, if you don't do something, somebody is going to buy the orchard." And he told them this again and again, and everytime the family did not take action. And then he bought the orchard himself. Now, I can see how some of you guys can see this as an insult, but I took his purchase as an "I told you so, and you refused to listen, so I gain and you lose" moments. I think that through Lopakhin Chekhov is telling a classic story of picking yourself up by the bootstraps, because he was born a serf but became rich. Lopakhin could very well be a model that Chekhov wants us to live up to.- JHe-c Mar 4, 2008
I think Lopakhin is thrown into the mix of characters because Chekov uses him to make a social commentary about the new rising middle class in Russia. We all know that Lopakhin came from peasant heritage but was able to work his way up to landowner once the serfs were freed. I think Chekov is trying to say that the new middle class has its good moments (i.e. trying to help Mme Ranevsky save her orchard) but are caught up in the wrong matters. I think Chekov is trying to say that the new rising middle class in Russia is overly concerned with economic issues and acquiring enough money to rival the nobility. Once Ranevsky refused to make the cherry orchard into a housing development, Lopakhin bought the orchard even though Ranevsky had the necessary money because of the money her aunt gave her. He then gloated about it and seemed very pleased with himself for buying the land that his grandfather used to work on as a serf. The middle class was so concerned about money issues that they were hurting their fellow Russians in the process and Lopakhin is a great example of it. - kli-c Mar 4, 2008
After finishing the play, my opinion of Lopakhin has changed somewhat. I couldn't believe that he bought the cherry orchard and completely rubbed it in the Ranevsky's faces at their dance party. I know he was drunk, but a lot of people don't censor their thoughts when they are drunk, so it just proves all the more how insensitive he is. He was completely gloating about it, which shows that he really doesn't care deep down about the Ranevskys well-being. And during the Ranevsky's last day in their house, he has people cutting down their beloved orchard right before their eyes; I don't know if that was insensitive, but it sure was carless of him. - lma-c Mar 5, 2008
Something that I dislike about Lopakhin at the end of the play is the fact that he went back on his worde to Mme. Ranevsky. He promised her that he would propose to Barbara when she came into the room, but for no good reason (I believe the champagne was gone) he left rapidly without even mentioning it. Not only was he callous to Barbara, who cared for him, but he was absolutely rude and ungentlemanly to Mme. Ranevsky, to whom he had given his word. I don't think that he's necessarily the villain of the play, but he most certainly isn't the hero of it.- NVa-c Mar 5, 2008
I was extremely confused about Lopakhin and the Ravensky family's relationship to him for the entire book. At times, he is giving them advice, telling them to divide the orchard up. He is at their house a lot for pleasure as well: he appears to be a family friend; they even joke about him and Barbara. What threw me for a loop was, of course, him buying the orchard, rubbing it in the family's face, and then promptly kicking them off the land as the cherry trees are being chopped down. Even while he was doing this, however, he was still nice to them, and they even tried to get him to propose to Barbara--which he again refused to do. I'm trying to understand his motivations behind his actions, but I just can't put all the pieces together, and when reading these posts I gain the feeling that many have this same issue. Does anyone have a solution towards his motives or an explanation of the bipolar relationship he has with the Ravensky family? - dsU-c Mar 5, 2008
He really shoots himself in the foot, in my opinon. Or maybe he means to come off the way he does. Nevertheless, he really is conveyed as the bad guy. He holds a lot of resentment toward Madame Ranevsky and the family because of his own past. He struggles with the class system and the oppression which it instills. The ironic part that really makes him a bad guy is exactly what dsu pointed out--that he buys it in the end and shoos them off the property, destroying the trees before they're even scheduled to leave. So in essence, instead of being sympathetic towards the people who have been the exception to the opressive landowning class, he kicks them out and gladly assumes their position and is fully ready to be powerful in a probably abusive way and is joyful about it. He was opressed as a kid and is happy now to finally be the opressor. - kco-c
In response to dsu, Lopakhin's relationship with the Ranevsky's was frustrating to me also. He stabbed the very person in the back who was always kind to him. Madame Ranevsky represents the aristocracy that Lopakhin is trying to put behind him, but I still didn't see it right for him to treat her like this at the end. In the beginning his actions seemed practical and logical, but at the end I felt more sympathy for the Ranevsky's than feeling proud of Lopakhin for overcoming the class system. The only explanation I have for this bipolar relationship is that he will do anything for money and success. Even if he risked the relationship he has with the Ranevsky's, his concern for money drove his actions. His childhood definately was a contributer to this materialistic characteristic. Because he had a rough childhood, now that the opportunity has presented itself, he's going to take it at all costs. - kec-c Mar 10, 2008
I think we can all agree that in the end Lopahkin is an unintentional villain who doesn't really mean to hurt anyone, but goes ahead and does it anyway. Basically, this guy is the epitome of capitalism because he is a self-made man who has earned everything that he has, and he continuously thirsts for more and more without much regard towards the well-being of others. If anything, as it has been mentioned he did warn Madam Ranevsky earlier in the novel that if something wasn't done that someone somewhere would buy the orchard and that someone ended up being him. Lopahkin here exists as an example of how it is the person who takes advantage of opportunities who wins while the lazy aristocracy of the past sits back and lets itself get screwed over. He is not a villain because Madam Ranevsky could have solved the problem of selling the orchard earlier by taking just one of the ideas that Lopahkin gave her and doing something with it, but no she lazily let the rug get pulled out from under her. Lopahkin is just another guy taking advantage of the opportunities presented to him.- KRi-c Mar 10, 2008
KRi you described Lopahkin's situation quite well; however, there's one aspect that I believe you missed: the serfdom of the previous generations of his family. Lopahkin did try to help Madam Ranevsky for she was pretty kind when he was a peasant to her estate, but when he bought the house it was like the fact that his great-grandfather and all his fathers before him were tied to that land. So, by owing the property that Lopahkin and all of his family members worked on, he basically erased his serfdom history. I believe this is a key reason that he could not marry Barbara because she would remind him of this tragic history. Thus, Lopahkin is a good-natured guy trying to cleanish his family name and promote his status. - kva-c Mar 11, 2008
KRi, I think you're right that Lopahkin is an unintentional villian, but I disagree with him being the epitome of capitalism. I think he is more intended to be the epitome of social mobility, which is possible in but not limited to capitalism. This idea of social mobility and fluid class structures is one of the main themes in this play, I think. Chekhov is commenting on the shifts in Russian society, and Lopakhin stands for all those who took advantage of the change and adapted to the new situation. For those like Madame Ranevsky or Firs, who did not adapt, the change was difficult and resulted in their loss of either house or life. You're right KRi that Lopakhin is seizing opportunities presented to him while Ranevsky sits back, does nothing, and loses her house. Really Lopakhin might not be the unintentional villian, but rather Ranevsky is the lazy victim.- mka-c Mar 12, 2008
Caring? I'm not sure I'd quite word it that way there. Um, I don't he intends to be cruel. After all, Madame R was certainly nice to him in his youth, so he feels a sort of debt to her. But I think he's far from being a caring guy having trouble expressing himself. His father, a serf, ended up pushing him to a life of practicality the way he raised him. So L now has no room for sentiments or anything but direct questions and answers. I mean, sure, he hates his past, wishes to succeed, but he doesn't to it with the love and feeling that the other characters have. And he's so forward with everything he says not solely because he has social issues (although I might argue for those as well) but because he wants to get to the bottom of situations head-on, because he tempers his emotions, his passions. He's scarily practical, and that's why he might seem unlikable for us as readers. - AZU-C Mar 12, 2008
Later on page 20, he says: "Excuse me, but in all my life I never met anybody so frivolous as you two [Gayef and Mme Ranevsky], so crazy and unbusinesslike! I tell you in plain Russian your property is going to be sold, and you don't seem to understand what I say." Okay, that was a bit harsh and upfront, but then again, he kind of needs to be harsh here because Gayef and Mme Ranevsky do need some sense knocked into them. I also see this as an instance where Lopakhin is just trying to look out for his friends/neighbors; he is actually being nice here because he doesn't want to see the Ranevskys lose all of their property. So my conclusion is that Lopakhin can rub people the wrong way, but deep down, he still is a caring guy. -
I definitely think that Lopakhin is a little too pushy and money-centric to come off as a good neighbor. While he really has nothing to gain from the sale of the cherry orchard (as far as I can tell), I'm not quite ready to conclude that his motives are good... he's just being so ingorant of Ranevsky and Gayef's feelings and emotional ties that I still don't like him. While I can see that Mme Ranevsky really isn't very good at looking out for her finances, Gayef seems to be motivated enough to take action, as does Barabara if it were to fall to her. All in all, I'm still uneasy about Lopakhin. -
In all honesty, I found Lopakhin to be the voice of reason. He kept on telling the Ranevskys "by the way, if you don't do something, somebody is going to buy the orchard." And he told them this again and again, and everytime the family did not take action. And then he bought the orchard himself. Now, I can see how some of you guys can see this as an insult, but I took his purchase as an "I told you so, and you refused to listen, so I gain and you lose" moments. I think that through Lopakhin Chekhov is telling a classic story of picking yourself up by the bootstraps, because he was born a serf but became rich. Lopakhin could very well be a model that Chekhov wants us to live up to.-
I think Lopakhin is thrown into the mix of characters because Chekov uses him to make a social commentary about the new rising middle class in Russia. We all know that Lopakhin came from peasant heritage but was able to work his way up to landowner once the serfs were freed. I think Chekov is trying to say that the new middle class has its good moments (i.e. trying to help Mme Ranevsky save her orchard) but are caught up in the wrong matters. I think Chekov is trying to say that the new rising middle class in Russia is overly concerned with economic issues and acquiring enough money to rival the nobility. Once Ranevsky refused to make the cherry orchard into a housing development, Lopakhin bought the orchard even though Ranevsky had the necessary money because of the money her aunt gave her. He then gloated about it and seemed very pleased with himself for buying the land that his grandfather used to work on as a serf. The middle class was so concerned about money issues that they were hurting their fellow Russians in the process and Lopakhin is a great example of it.
-
After finishing the play, my opinion of Lopakhin has changed somewhat. I couldn't believe that he bought the cherry orchard and completely rubbed it in the Ranevsky's faces at their dance party. I know he was drunk, but a lot of people don't censor their thoughts when they are drunk, so it just proves all the more how insensitive he is. He was completely gloating about it, which shows that he really doesn't care deep down about the Ranevskys well-being. And during the Ranevsky's last day in their house, he has people cutting down their beloved orchard right before their eyes; I don't know if that was insensitive, but it sure was carless of him. -
Something that I dislike about Lopakhin at the end of the play is the fact that he went back on his worde to Mme. Ranevsky. He promised her that he would propose to Barbara when she came into the room, but for no good reason (I believe the champagne was gone) he left rapidly without even mentioning it. Not only was he callous to Barbara, who cared for him, but he was absolutely rude and ungentlemanly to Mme. Ranevsky, to whom he had given his word. I don't think that he's necessarily the villain of the play, but he most certainly isn't the hero of it.-
I was extremely confused about Lopakhin and the Ravensky family's relationship to him for the entire book. At times, he is giving them advice, telling them to divide the orchard up. He is at their house a lot for pleasure as well: he appears to be a family friend; they even joke about him and Barbara. What threw me for a loop was, of course, him buying the orchard, rubbing it in the family's face, and then promptly kicking them off the land as the cherry trees are being chopped down. Even while he was doing this, however, he was still nice to them, and they even tried to get him to propose to Barbara--which he again refused to do. I'm trying to understand his motivations behind his actions, but I just can't put all the pieces together, and when reading these posts I gain the feeling that many have this same issue. Does anyone have a solution towards his motives or an explanation of the bipolar relationship he has with the Ravensky family?
-
He really shoots himself in the foot, in my opinon. Or maybe he means to come off the way he does. Nevertheless, he really is conveyed as the bad guy. He holds a lot of resentment toward Madame Ranevsky and the family because of his own past. He struggles with the class system and the oppression which it instills. The ironic part that really makes him a bad guy is exactly what dsu pointed out--that he buys it in the end and shoos them off the property, destroying the trees before they're even scheduled to leave. So in essence, instead of being sympathetic towards the people who have been the exception to the opressive landowning class, he kicks them out and gladly assumes their position and is fully ready to be powerful in a probably abusive way and is joyful about it. He was opressed as a kid and is happy now to finally be the opressor. -
In response to dsu, Lopakhin's relationship with the Ranevsky's was frustrating to me also. He stabbed the very person in the back who was always kind to him. Madame Ranevsky represents the aristocracy that Lopakhin is trying to put behind him, but I still didn't see it right for him to treat her like this at the end. In the beginning his actions seemed practical and logical, but at the end I felt more sympathy for the Ranevsky's than feeling proud of Lopakhin for overcoming the class system. The only explanation I have for this bipolar relationship is that he will do anything for money and success. Even if he risked the relationship he has with the Ranevsky's, his concern for money drove his actions. His childhood definately was a contributer to this materialistic characteristic. Because he had a rough childhood, now that the opportunity has presented itself, he's going to take it at all costs. -
I think we can all agree that in the end Lopahkin is an unintentional villain who doesn't really mean to hurt anyone, but goes ahead and does it anyway. Basically, this guy is the epitome of capitalism because he is a self-made man who has earned everything that he has, and he continuously thirsts for more and more without much regard towards the well-being of others. If anything, as it has been mentioned he did warn Madam Ranevsky earlier in the novel that if something wasn't done that someone somewhere would buy the orchard and that someone ended up being him. Lopahkin here exists as an example of how it is the person who takes advantage of opportunities who wins while the lazy aristocracy of the past sits back and lets itself get screwed over. He is not a villain because Madam Ranevsky could have solved the problem of selling the orchard earlier by taking just one of the ideas that Lopahkin gave her and doing something with it, but no she lazily let the rug get pulled out from under her. Lopahkin is just another guy taking advantage of the opportunities presented to him.-
KRi you described Lopahkin's situation quite well; however, there's one aspect that I believe you missed: the serfdom of the previous generations of his family. Lopahkin did try to help Madam Ranevsky for she was pretty kind when he was a peasant to her estate, but when he bought the house it was like the fact that his great-grandfather and all his fathers before him were tied to that land. So, by owing the property that Lopahkin and all of his family members worked on, he basically erased his serfdom history. I believe this is a key reason that he could not marry Barbara because she would remind him of this tragic history. Thus, Lopahkin is a good-natured guy trying to cleanish his family name and promote his status.
-
KRi, I think you're right that Lopahkin is an unintentional villian, but I disagree with him being the epitome of capitalism. I think he is more intended to be the epitome of social mobility, which is possible in but not limited to capitalism. This idea of social mobility and fluid class structures is one of the main themes in this play, I think. Chekhov is commenting on the shifts in Russian society, and Lopakhin stands for all those who took advantage of the change and adapted to the new situation. For those like Madame Ranevsky or Firs, who did not adapt, the change was difficult and resulted in their loss of either house or life. You're right KRi that Lopakhin is seizing opportunities presented to him while Ranevsky sits back, does nothing, and loses her house. Really Lopakhin might not be the unintentional villian, but rather Ranevsky is the lazy victim.-
Caring? I'm not sure I'd quite word it that way there. Um, I don't he intends to be cruel. After all, Madame R was certainly nice to him in his youth, so he feels a sort of debt to her. But I think he's far from being a caring guy having trouble expressing himself. His father, a serf, ended up pushing him to a life of practicality the way he raised him. So L now has no room for sentiments or anything but direct questions and answers. I mean, sure, he hates his past, wishes to succeed, but he doesn't to it with the love and feeling that the other characters have. And he's so forward with everything he says not solely because he has social issues (although I might argue for those as well) but because he wants to get to the bottom of situations head-on, because he tempers his emotions, his passions. He's scarily practical, and that's why he might seem unlikable for us as readers. -